Abstract
For a onedimensional (1D) waveguide coupled to two or three qubits, we show that the photonphoton correlations have a wide variety of behavior, with structure that depends sensitively on the frequency and on the qubitqubit separation L. We study the correlations by calculating the secondorder correlation function in which the interference among the photons multiply scattered from the qubits causes rich structure. In one case, for example, transmitted and reflected photons are both bunched initially, but then become strongly antibunched for a long time interval. We first calculate the correlation function including nonMarkovian effects and then show that a much simpler Markovian treatment, which can be solved analytically, is accurate for small qubit separation. As a result, the nonclassical properties of microwaves in a 1D waveguide coupled to many superconducting qubits with experimentally accessible separation L could be readily explored with our approach.
Keywords:
quantum electrodynamics; quantum photonics; circuit QED; nonclassical light1 Introduction
Onedimensional (1D) waveguideQED systems are currently generating increasing interest  systems in which photons confined in onedimension interact with one or several twolevel systems (qubits). Part of the motivation comes from the striking quantum optics effects that can be seen in these strongly coupled systems [119]. Another motivating factor is the promise of waveguideQED systems for quantum information processing [2027]. Finally, a key driver of the interest in waveguideQED systems is the tremendous experimental progress that has been made recently in a number of systems [2841]. Perhaps the leading system for waveguideQED investigations and applications is an open microwave transmission line coupled to superconducting qubits [3437,42,43]. While much of the work to date has focused on systems in which there is a single qubit, and there is a growing literature on the case of two qubits [10,17,19,41,4449], an important future direction for both fundamental effects and possible applications is to study a waveguide coupled to multiple (or many) qubits. As a step in this direction, here we compare and contrast results for one, two, and three qubits coupled to a waveguide [see Figure 1(a)], focusing in particular on the generation of photonphoton correlations.
Figure 1. Quantum beats in three qubit system. (a) Schematic diagram of the 1D waveguide system coupled to 3 identical qubits with separation L. (b) Comparison between the Markovian approximation (solid blue curve) and full numerical results (red dashed line) for of reflected photons with , , , and .
Correlations between photons are a key signature of nonclassical light. They are often characterized by the secondorder correlation function (photonphoton correlation function) where t is the observation time between the two photons (see below for precise definition) [50]. The uncorrelated, classical value is (obtained, for example, for a coherent state). Bunching of photons, , often occurs due to the bosonic nature of photons but antibunching, , also occurs [50]. In recent experiments, of microwave photons coupled to superconducting qubits was measured, and both bunching and antibunching were observed [38,51]. In a multiqubit situation, one expects to have interference between the various scattered partial waves; interference effects in the photonphoton correlations are known as ‘quantum beats’ [52].
In this paper, we first present our method of calculation, which exploits a bosonic representation of the qubits in the rotating wave approximation. We obtain a complicated yet analytic result for in the Markovian limit and show, by comparison with the full numerical result, that it is adequate for small, experimentally accessible separations between the qubits. In presenting results, we focus on an offresonant case in which single photons have equal probability of being transmitted or reflected, and take the separation between qubits, denoted L, to be either or where is the wavelength of a photon at the qubit resonant frequency. We find several striking features in : First, for , the transmitted photons are largely bunched for all times and become more strongly bunched as the number of qubits increases, while the reflected photons oscillate between strong bunching and antibunching, showing particularly strong quantum beats in the three qubit case. Second, for , we find the surprising situation that both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched at but then become antibunched for a large time interval. This suggests that the photons in this case become organized into bursts.
2 Method
The Hamiltonian describing N identical qubits coupled to a 1D waveguide [see Figure 1(a)] is, in the rotating wave approximation,
where are the raising/lowering operators for ith qubit, is its position which is fixed by , is the transition frequency of the qubit, and is the decay rate to channels other than the waveguide. The spontaneous decay rate to the waveguide continuum is given by . In the waveguide QED context, ‘strong coupling’ signifies that the spontaneous decay rate to the waveguide is much faster than the decay to all other modes, namely that the Purcell factor is large, .
To find , we first obtain the twophoton eigenstate of . As discussed in Ref. [17], it is convenient to use a bosonic representation of the qubits that includes an onsite interaction,
The raising/lowering operators in are replaced by the bosonic creation/annihilation operators and , respectively. One then takes in the end to project out occupations greater than 1. In this bosonic representation, the case corresponds to a noninteracting Hamiltonian and can readily be solved. In terms of the noninteracting wavefunctions and Green functions, a formal expression for the twophoton ‘interacting’ wavefunction in the limit can be obtained; this then is the solution to the waveguide QED problem in which we are interested. Finally, the twophoton wavefunction together with the onephoton wavefunction yields for a weak incident coherent state. More details of this procedure are given in the appendices.
The Markovian approximation allows a considerable simplification of the final result [17]. In the present context, the Markovian approximation consists of an approximate treatment of certain interference terms valid for small separation between the qubits. In the formal expression for the twophoton wavefunction discussed above, there is an integral over the noninteracting wavefunctions which generally must be performed numerically. The noninteracting wavefunctions naturally involve interference factors that make this integral difficult. However, if the qubits are close enough, k may be replaced by , allowing the integral to be performed analytically using contour integration (the analytic expression of the final result is lengthy, so we just give the steps of the derivation in the appendices as well as the result as an example). All of the results in this paper are obtained in the regime where this is valid. An example of the checks we have made is shown in Figure 1(b): the full numerical result is in good agreement with that from the small separation approximation.
We compare the one, two, and three qubit cases: . In order to make a fair comparison, the typical transmission through the system in the three cases should be the same; otherwise, the lower probability of finding a photon in one case compared to another will affect . We therefore consider offresonance cases (i.e. where ω is the incoming photon frequency) in which the singlephoton transmission probability T is fixed. Because the singlephoton transmission spectrum depends on the number of qubits, the frequency used is different in the three cases . Due to the asymmetry of the singlephoton transmission spectrum in certain cases, the criterion used throughout this work is to pick up the frequency closest to so that is the largest.
In the following results, we consider ; ; and . The single photon transmission curves used to choose the photon frequency ω are shown in Figure 2. We use Γ as our unit of frequency, take , and consider the lossless case, .
Figure 2. Transmission spectra near the qubit resonant frequency () for an incident singlephoton Fock state in the five situations studied here.
3 Results
The results for a single qubit, shown in Figure 3 panels (a) and (d), provide a point of comparison for the two and three qubit cases discussed below; throughout we consider the response to an incident weak coherent state. Nonclassical light in a waveguide produced by a single qubit has been extensively investigated theoretically [1,2,46,8,1113] as well as experimentally with microwave photons [38]. We see that for our chosen detuning such that , the transmitted field shows bunching while the reflected field is antibunched. The correlation decays to its classical value (namely, 1) quickly and with little structure. For this reason the single value is a good indication of the nature of the correlations overall. Note that in panel (d), due to the inability of a single excited qubit to release two photons at the same time.
Figure 3. Secondorder correlation function,, calculated with a weak incident coherent state for spacing. First row is for transmitted photons, second row for reflected photons. The columns correspond to qubits coupled to the waveguide. The photon frequency is chosen so that . The result for uncorrelated photons, , is marked (dashed line) for comparison. In the three qubit case, note the strong bunching in transmission [panel (c)] and striking quantum beats in reflection [panel (f)].
For , we start by considering the case , in which case the qubits are separated by ; the results are shown in Figure 3. The presence of quantum beats coming from interference among the partial waves scattered by the qubits is clear, especially for three qubits. In the transmitted wave, photon bunching is considerably enhanced in magnitude and extends for a longer time (compared to a single qubit). In reflection, develops a striking oscillation between strongly bunched and antibunched [panel (f)]. Such behavior in suggests that the photons become organized periodically in time and space.
Turning now to the case (a separation of ), we see in Figure 4 that the behavior is completely different. First, the quantum beats largely disappear in both transmission and reflection. Instead, for we see that both the reflected and transmitted photons are initially bunched, in the reflected case quite strongly bunched. The initial bunching is followed in both cases by antibunching. This antibunching is dramatic for the transmitted photons: strong antibunching persists for a time interval of several tens of (the natural unit of time in our problem). Initial bunching followed by a long interval of antibunching suggests that the photons are organized into bursts.
Figure 4. Secondorder correlation function,, calculated with a weak incident coherent state for spacing. First row is for transmitted photons, second row for reflected photons. The columns correspond to qubits coupled to the waveguide. The photon frequency is chosen so that . The result for uncorrelated photons, , is marked (dashed line) for comparison. In the three qubit case, note the strong bunching in reflection [panel (f)] and long antibunching interval after the initial bunching in transmission [panel (c)].
The different behavior for compared to can be traced to a difference in the structure of the poles of the single photon Green function (see, e.g., the discussion in Ref. [17]). For instance in the cases, for there are two dominant poles that have the same decay rate but different real frequencies, leading to maximum interference effects between those two processes. In contrast, for , the poles have very different decay rates; the one decaying most rapidly yields the sharp initial bunching, while the one with the slowest decay produces the long time antibunching.
To study how the correlations depend on the frequency of the photons, we show the initial correlation, , in Figures 5 and 6. Because of the oscillating structure in when there are multiple qubits, is not necessarily a good indication of the behavior at later times; nevertheless, the degree of initial bunching or antibunching is a physically important and measurable quantity. For a fair comparison between the cases, we first plot as a function of the single photon transmission, T; see Figure 5. To match the desired T with an offresonant photon frequency we follow the following procedure: Starting near the resonant frequency (where ), we scan toward smaller frequencies until is reached. We then use frequencies within the scanned range to calculate for both transmission and reflection as a function of T at and . Another way of presenting the data is to simply plot directly as a function of frequency, as in Figure 6. By comparing with Figure 2, we see that the method above for selecting the range of frequencies to use in making Figure 5 selects the range with largest for a given value of T. Finally, note that for reflection from one qubit, in all cases, as mentioned above, and so is not plotted in panels (b) and (d) of both figures.
Figure 5. The initial secondorder correlation,(on a logarithmic scale), calculated with a weak incident coherent state as a function of the singlephoton transmission probability,T, for different numbers of qubits. The first (second) row is for (); the first (second) column is for transmitted (reflected) photons. For reflected photons with , for all T and hence is not plotted. For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.
Figure 6. The initial secondorder correlation,(on a logarithmic scale), calculated with a weak incident coherent state as a function of the frequencyωnear the qubit resonant frequency () for different numbers of qubits. The first (second) row is for (); the first (second) column is for transmitted (reflected) photons. The black, dashed line indicates the classical value (i.e., ). For reflected photons with , for all ω and hence is not plotted. Note that as for the singlephoton transmission in Fig. 2, is symmetric about for but asymmetric in the case. For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.
Several general trends are clear from Figure 5. Bunching is favored over antibunching for both . As the single photon transmission increases, decreases for transmission but generally increases for reflection. Opposite trends for transmission and reflection are natural based on the simple argument that incoming uncorrelated photons divide between transmitted and reflected ones so that bunching in one implies antibunching in the other. Clearly, this simple argument does not apply here; indeed, it is striking and surprising that for a broad range of parameters both transmitted and reflected photons are bunched.
Trends as the number of qubits increases from 1 to 3 are also evident in Figure 5. In panels (a) and (d) the trend is monotonic: For , the reflected photons become tremendously bunched [panel (d)], whereas for and transmitted photons [panel (a)], the curves cross at the same point indicating that the trend changes signincreasing bunching as N increases for but decreasing bunching for smaller T. In the other two cases, panels (b) and (c), the trend as N increases from 1 to 3 is not monotonic. For and , the reflected photons switch from being antibunched to bunched to antibunched as N changes from 1 to 3, but show increasing bunching for larger T [panel (b)]. Finally, in panel (c) [ and transmitted photons], there is a monotonic trend toward less bunching for but nonmonotonic behavior for larger transmission.
From the explicit dependence on frequency shown in Figure 6, we see that bunching is generally favored even outside the frequency range chosen in Figure 5 (which in the case is quite small (<Γ)). Comparing to the single photon transmission spectrum (see Figure 2), we point out two features: First, in the case, shows the asymmetry with respect to [panel (c) and (d)] seen in ; this again can be traced to the asymmetric pole structure of the Green functions mentioned above. is larger (for reflection) and varies more rapidly on the reddetuned side (), which explains why we chose the frequency range use in Figure 5. In fact, on the bluedetuned side () the structure in is less dramatic, and it returns to 1 faster (data not shown). Second, as also shown in Figure 5, the peaks of for transmission are located where , while the peaks of reflected are located where . Note that the leftmost peak of in Figure 6(d) is completely due to the small denominator () at that point.
4 Conclusion
In this work, we have calculated the secondorder correlation function, , for photons in a onedimensional waveguide interacting with one, two or three qubits. By taking the separation between the qubits small, we are able to make a Markovian approximation which then allows an analytic solution. The small separation and small N on which we focus means that these systems are within the range of current experimental capability [19].
The interference among the partial waves scattered from the qubits leads to a variety of behavior in that is sensitive to both the separation between the qubits (L) and the frequency of the incoming photons. As examples of the rich variety accessible in these waveguide QED structures, we mention three here in conclusion: (i) For a wide range of parameters, both transmitted and reflected photons are initially bunched. (ii) For reflected photons with and , oscillates between bunching and antibunching [Figure 3(f)]. (iii) For transmitted photons with and , initial strong bunching is followed by a long (i.e.) interval of antibunching [Figure 4(c)]. These last two observations suggest that some nascent organization of the photons may be occurring, providing an interesting direction for future research.
Appendix 1: Twophoton interacting scattering eigenstate
The single photon eigenstate with is by definition the eigenstate of , i.e., , where
and the incoming photon travels in the αdirection with wavevector k. The single photon transmission amplitude is given by and the reflection amplitude by . Note that the positions of the qubits are chosen to be symmetric with respect to the origin, i.e., , in order to take advantage of parity symmetry. Setting from now on, we have for [17]
The corresponding result for is
with . Note that we do not need the other amplitudes for the rest of this section. For results see, e.g., Ref. [8].
We can now construct the twophoton ‘noninteracting’ eigenstate
As described in the Supplementary Material of Ref. [17], starting from the LippmannSchwinger equation
where V is given in Eq. (2) and E is the two photon energy, one can derive the twophoton interacting eigenstate in the coordinate representation in the limit:
Note that and here refer to the positions of the photons.
By observing the structure of these Green functions, one would realize that given the following two pieces
the whole prescription is complete and in principle one may numerically compute the twophoton interacting eigenstate Eq. (20) for any N.
Finally, to proceed with the Markovian approximation, we explicitly write down the integrands in Eqs. (21) and (23), replace the factors by therein, and do the double integral by standard contour integral techniques enclosing the poles in the upper half complex plane (for the case, for example, the denominator of each transmission amplitude is a cubic polynomial in k, so there are three roots). The case [17] could serve as an illustrative example owing to its relatively simple polynomial structure: For with , we have
where , , and . During the two contour integrations, and (with ) are used. Due to parity symmetry, , , and .
Appendix 2: Twophoton correlation function
For a nondispersive photonic field operator in the Heisenberg picture which satisfies , the twophoton correlation function can be rewritten in the Schrödinger picture as
where is the asymptotic output state and for transmitted photons or for reflected photons. The second equality holds if a weak incident coherent state (mean photon number ) with rightgoing photons is assumed  as is appropriate for comparison with an eventual experiment  such that we consider only twophoton states in the numerator and onephoton states in the denominator. The justification for the latter is twofold: (i) In the numerator, the 0 and 1photon states are eliminated by the annihilation operators, leaving the 2photon sector untouched which, then, can be described by . (ii) In the denominator, the probability of having only one photon is much larger then having two, so that the factors can be replaced by the single photon eigenstate given that (i.e. two identical incident photons). We are thus lead to an explicit expression for the photonphoton correlations in terms of the 1 and 2photon states found using the method outlined in Appendix 1.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Authors’ contributions
YLF carried out the calculations and made the plots. All three authors participated in the design of the research, analysis of the results, and writing of the paper.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by U.S. NSF Grant No. PHY1068698. HZ was supported by a John T. Chambers Fellowship from the Fitzpatrick Institute for Photonics at Duke University.
References

Rupasov VI, Yudson VI: Rigorous theory of cooperative spontaneous emission of radiation from a lumped system of twolevel atoms: Bethe ansatz method.
Zh Èksp Teor Fiz 1984, 87:16171630.
. [Sov Phys JETP 1984, 60:927934]

Yudson VI: Dynamics of integrable quantum systems.
Zh Èksp Teor Fiz 1985, 88:17571770.
. [Sov Phys JETP 1985, 61:10431050]

Chang DE, Sørensen AS, Hemmer PR, Lukin MD: Quantum optics with surface plasmons.
Phys Rev Lett 2006., 97(5)
Article ID 053002
Publisher Full Text 
Shen JT, Fan S: Strongly correlated twophoton transport in a onedimensional waveguide coupled to a twolevel system.
Phys Rev Lett 2007., 98(15)
Article ID 153003
Publisher Full Text 
Shen JT, Fan S: Strongly correlated multiparticle transport in one dimension through a quantum impurity.
Phys Rev A 2007., 76(6)
Article ID 062709
Publisher Full Text 
Yudson VI, Reineker P: Multiphoton scattering in a onedimensional waveguide with resonant atoms.
Phys Rev A 2008., 78
Article ID 052713
Publisher Full Text 
Witthaut D, Sørensen AS: Photon scattering by a threelevel emitter in a onedimensional waveguide.
New J Phys 2010., 12(4)
Article ID 043052
Publisher Full Text 
Zheng H, Gauthier DJ, Baranger HU: Waveguide QED: manybody boundstate effects in coherent and Fockstate scattering from a twolevel system.
Phys Rev A 2010., 82(6)
Article ID 063816
Publisher Full Text 
Ian H, Liu YX, Nori F: Tunable electromagnetically induced transparency and absorption with dressed superconducting qubits.
Phys Rev A 2010., 81
Article ID 063823
Publisher Full Text 
Rephaeli E, Kocabaş ŞE, Fan S: Fewphoton transport in a waveguide coupled to a pair of colocated twolevel atoms.
Phys Rev A 2011., 84
Article ID 063832
Publisher Full Text 
Roy D: Twophoton scattering by a driven threelevel emitter in a onedimensional waveguide and electromagnetically induced transparency.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106(5)
Article ID 053601
Publisher Full Text 
Roy D: Correlated fewphoton transport in onedimensional waveguides: linear and nonlinear dispersions.
Phys Rev A 2011., 83
Article ID 043823
Publisher Full Text 
Shi T, Fan S, Sun CP: Twophoton transport in a waveguide coupled to a cavity in a twolevel system.
Phys Rev A 2011., 84
Article ID 063803
Publisher Full Text 
Zheng H, Gauthier DJ, Baranger HU: Cavityfree photon blockade induced by manybody bound states.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 107
Article ID 223601
Publisher Full Text 
Zheng H, Gauthier DJ, Baranger HU: Strongly correlated photons generated by coupling a three or fourlevel system to a waveguide.
Phys Rev A 2012., 85
Article ID 043832
Publisher Full Text 
Rephaeli E, Fan S: Stimulated emission from a single excited atom in a waveguide.
Phys Rev Lett 2012., 108
Article ID 143602
Publisher Full Text 
Zheng H, Baranger HU: Persistent quantum beats and longdistance entanglement from waveguidemediated interactions.
Phys Rev Lett 2013., 110(11)
Article ID 113601
Publisher Full Text 
Moeferdt M, Schmitteckert P, Busch K: Correlated photons in onedimensional waveguides.
Opt. Lett. 2013, 38:3693. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Lalumière K, Sanders BC, van Loo AF, Fedorov A, Wallraff A, Blais A: Inputoutput theory for waveguide QED with an ensemble of inhomogeneous atoms.
Phys Rev A 2013., 88
Article ID 043806
Publisher Full Text 
Shen JT, Fan S: Coherent single photon transport in a onedimensional waveguide coupled with superconducting quantum bits.
Phys Rev Lett 2005., 95(21)
Article ID 213001
Publisher Full Text 
Chang DE, Sørensen AS, Demler EA, Lukin MD: A singlephoton transistor using nanoscale surface plasmons.
Nat Phys 2007, 3:807812. Publisher Full Text

Zhou L, Gong ZR, Liu YX, Sun CP, Nori F: Controllable scattering of a single photon inside a onedimensional resonator waveguide.
Phys Rev Lett 2008., 101(10)
Article ID 100501
Publisher Full Text 
Longo P, Schmitteckert P, Busch K: Fewphoton transport in lowdimensional systems: interactioninduced radiation trapping.
Phys Rev Lett 2010., 104(2)
Article ID 023602
Publisher Full Text 
Kolchin P, Oulton RF, Zhang X: Nonlinear quantum optics in a waveguide: distinct single photons strongly interacting at the single atom level.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106(11)
Article ID 113601
Publisher Full Text 
Eichler C, Bozyigit D, Wallraff A: Characterizing quantum microwave radiation and its entanglement with superconducting qubits using linear detectors.
Phys Rev A 2012., 86
Article ID 032106
Publisher Full Text 
Zheng H, Gauthier DJ, Baranger HU: Decoystate quantum key distribution with nonclassical light generated in a onedimensional waveguide.
Opt Lett 2013, 38(5):622624. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Zheng H, Gauthier DJ, Baranger HU: WaveguideQEDbased photonic quantum computation.
Phys Rev Lett 2013., 111
Article ID 090502
Publisher Full Text 
Akimov AV, Mukherjee A, Yu CL, Chang DE, Zibrov AS, Hemmer PR, Park H, Lukin MD: Generation of single optical plasmons in metallic nanowires coupled to quantum dots.
Nature 2007., 450
Article ID 402
Publisher Full Text 
Bajcsy M, Hofferberth S, Balic V, Peyronel T, Hafezi M, Zibrov AS, Vuletic V, Lukin MD: Efficient alloptical switching using slow light within a hollow fiber.
Phys Rev Lett 2009., 102(20)
Article ID 203902
Publisher Full Text 
Babinec TM, Hausmann BJM, Khan M, Zhang Y, Maze JR, Hemmer PR, Lončar M: A diamond nanowire singlephoton source.
Nat Nanotechnol 2010., 5(1038)
Article ID 195
Publisher Full Text 
Claudon J, Bleuse J, Malik NS, Bazin M, Jaffrennou P, Gregersen N, Sauvan C, Lalanne P, Gérard JM: A highly efficient singlephoton source based on a quantum dot in a photonic nanowire.
Nat Photonics 2010., 4(1038)
Article ID 174
Publisher Full Text 
Bleuse J, Claudon J, Creasey M, Malik NS, Gérard JM, Maksymov I, Hugonin JP, Lalanne P: Inhibition, enhancement, and control of spontaneous emission in photonic nanowires.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106
Article ID 103601
Publisher Full Text 
Laucht A, Pütz S, Günthner T, Hauke N, Saive R, Frédérick S, Bichler M, Amann MC, Holleitner AW, Kaniber M, Finley JJ: A waveguidecoupled onchip singlephoton source.
Phys Rev X 2012., 2
Article ID 011014
Publisher Full Text 
Astafiev O, Zagoskin AM, Abdumalikov AA, Pashkin YA, Yamamoto T, Inomata K, Nakamura Y, Tsai JS: Resonance fluorescence of a single artificial atom.
Science 2010, 327(5967):840843. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Astafiev OV, Abdumalikov AA, Zagoskin AM, Pashkin YA, Nakamura Y, Tsai JS: Ultimate onchip quantum amplifier.
Phys Rev Lett 2010., 104
Article ID 183603
Publisher Full Text 
Eichler C, Bozyigit D, Lang C, Steffen L, Fink J, Wallraff A: Experimental state tomography of itinerant single microwave photons.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106
Article ID 220503
Publisher Full Text 
Hoi IC, Wilson CM, Johansson G, Palomaki T, Peropadre B, Delsing P: Demonstration of a singlephoton router in the microwave regime.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 107
Article ID 073601
Publisher Full Text 
Hoi IC, Palomaki T, Lindkvist J, Johansson G, Delsing P, Wilson CM: Generation of nonclassical microwave states using an artificial atom in 1D open space.
Phys Rev Lett 2012., 108
Article ID 263601
Publisher Full Text 
Eichler C, Lang C, Fink JM, Govenius J, Filipp S, Wallraff A: Observation of entanglement between itinerant microwave photons and a superconducting qubit.
Phys Rev Lett 2012., 109
Article ID 240501
Publisher Full Text 
Hoi IC, Kockum AF, Palomaki T, Stace TM, Fan B, Tornberg L, Sathyamoorthy SR, Johansson G, Delsing P, Wilson CM: Giant crossKerr effect for propagating microwaves induced by an artificial atom.
Phys Rev Lett 2013., 111
Article ID 053601
Publisher Full Text 
van Loo AF, Fedorov A, Lalumiére K, Sanders BC, Blais A, Wallraff A: Photonmediated interactions between distant artificial atoms.
Science 2013, 342:1494. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text

Wallraff A, Schuster DI, Blais A, Frunzio L, Huang RS, Majer J, Kumar S, Girvin SM, Schoelkopf RJ: Strong coupling of a single photon to a superconducting qubit using circuit quantum electrodynamics.
Nature 2004., 431
Article ID 162
Publisher Full Text 
Schoelkopf RJ, Girvin SM: Wiring up quantum systems.
Nature 2008., 451
Article ID 664
Publisher Full Text 
Dzsotjan D, Sørensen AS, Fleischhauer M: Quantum emitters coupled to surface plasmons of a nanowire: a Green’s function approach.
Phys Rev B 2010., 82
Article ID 075427
Publisher Full Text 
GonzalezTudela A, MartinCano D, Moreno E, MartinMoreno L, Tejedor C, GarciaVidal FJ: Entanglement of two qubits mediated by onedimensional plasmonic waveguides.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106
Article ID 020501
Publisher Full Text 
Dzsotjan D, Kästel J, Fleischhauer M: Dipoledipole shift of quantum emitters coupled to surface plasmons of a nanowire.
Phys Rev B 2011., 84
Article ID 075419
Publisher Full Text 
GonzálezTudela A, Porras D: Mesoscopic entanglement induced by spontaneous emission in solidstate quantum optics.
Phys Rev Lett 2013., 110
Article ID 080502
Publisher Full Text 
GonzalezBallestero C, GarciaVidal FJ, Moreno E: NonMarkovian effects in waveguidemediated entanglement.
New J Phys 2013., 15(7)
Article ID 073015
Publisher Full Text 
Roy D: Cascaded twophoton nonlinearity in a onedimensional waveguide with multiple twolevel emitters.
Sci Rep 2013., 3
Article ID 2337
Publisher Full Text 
Loudon R: The Quantum Theory of Light. 3rd edition. Oxford University Press, New York; 2003.

Lang C, Bozyigit D, Eichler C, Steffen L, Fink JM, Abdumalikov AA, Baur M, Filipp S, da Silva MP, Blais A, Wallraff A: Observation of resonant photon blockade at microwave frequencies using correlation function measurements.
Phys Rev Lett 2011., 106
Article ID 243601
Publisher Full Text 
Ficek Z, Sanders BC: Quantum beats in twoatom resonance fluorescence.
Phys Rev A 1990, 41:359368. PubMed Abstract  Publisher Full Text